A
prosecutor running against Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Dan Oki yesterday
attacked a County Bar panel which rated her “not qualified” for judicial
office, saying the rating was “absurd” and “just goes to show how corrupt the
County Bar is.”

Deputy
District Attorney Hilary Rhonan, who is one of three candidates opposing Oki’s
bid for reelection, accused the lawyer who chaired the subcommittee which
initially interviewed her of dishonesty. At a subsequent interview, members of
the full Judicial Elections Evaluation Committee attacked her integrity and
then charged her with lacking judicial temperament when she vigorously defended
herself, Rhonan said.

Rhonan
said the subcommittee chairperson, Gigi Gordon, “lied to my face.” Gordon, a
committee vice-chair, told Rhonan the fact the candidate claimed indigency in
seeking to delay payment to the county for a ballot statement “was not a
negative,” Rhonan explained.

But
when Rhonan appeared before the full committee last month to appeal her
tentative “not qualified” rating, “all they talked about was indigency,” the
prosecutor said.

Rhonan
conceded that the full committee may not be bound by opinions expressed by a
subcommittee chair about the relevance of a particular issue, but went on to
charge that Gordon has a personal reason for being biased against her.

“Her
husband, Andy Stein, hates me because I beat him in trials when I was in Compton,”
Rhonan said. Stein is a prominent criminal defense attorney and is also a
member of the committee.

Stein
declined comment and Gordon did not return a MetNews telephone call. Stein
noted that committee rules bar members from publicly commenting on the ratings
or the interview process.

Rhonan
acknowledged she was angered when members of the full committee compared her
conduct in claiming indigency to “that of the criminals I am prosecuting.”
Rhonan prosecutes welfare fraud.

“They
didn’t understand it was just part of the democratic process,” Rhonan declared.
She has argued that the county Registrar-Recorder’s Office lacks standards for
determining what constitutes “indigency” with respect to paying the $65,000
cost of a statement to be included in the ballot pamphlet.

Rhonan
noted that a finding of indigency only allows a candidate to delay paying for
the statement, not to obtain a free statement, and that she did not have the
funds to pay for one at the time she made the claim.

The
indigency claim was denied. County officials have said Rhonan did not submit
required paperwork to support the claim.

The
candidate has said she was unwilling to provide personal information that might
become part of a public record and that the Registrar’s Office failed to return
her phone calls.

Rhonan
said yesterday she received a letter from the subcommittee indicating the
indigency claim was not considered to be a negative factor in evaluating her.
As a result, she was taken aback when questioned about it extensively, she
said.

“I
have to rely on what they tell me,” she said.

Rhonan
also suggested that the committee is biased in favor of Oki and does not wish
to see him successfully challenged.

The
jurist, then Criminal Courts supervising judge, infuriated some prosecutors in
May of last year when he ordered the downtown arraignment court to stop
arraigning in-custody defendants at 4:30
on the Wednesday following a holiday weekend. Some defendants who were not
arraigned were released, and one is accused of a subsequent murder.

The
president of a prosecutors’ group placed an ad in a legal newspaper soliciting
opposition to Oki and four other judges. But many judges and other members of
the legal community have rallied behind Oki, either supporting his
administrative decision or arguing a judge should not be challenged based on a
single questionable action.

Oki
has said he believed no defendants would actually be released, and that police
would rearrest those who could not be arraigned.

The
committee gave its highest rating—“well qualified”—to another of Oki’s
opponents, Deputy District Attorney Marc Debbaudt. But Rhonan said that does
not mean the County Bar panel is not angling to assure Oki’s reelection.

Noting
that both Debbaudt and Oki’s third opponent, Encino attorney Eugene Salute, are
male, she commented:

“I
believe that they considered me, the female, to be the greatest threat.”

Some
veteran observers of judicial elections believe that female prosecutors have
been among the most formidable candidates in recent election cycles.

Rhonan
said she was “very insulted” by the way the committee treated her.

“They
treated me like I was a defendant,” she said, adding:

“The
whole process just stinks. They are so corrupt and so obvious about their
corruption—they don’t even make an effort to hide it.”

A
Los Angeles County Bar Association spokesperson said yesterday that while the
committee’s meeting Tuesday night, at which it heard a number of ratings
appeals, was its final session, ratings are not expected to be made public
until tomorrow at the earliest. The additional time is necessary to prepare the
committee’s report and the letters that will be sent to the candidates, the
spokesperson explained.

Those
whose appeals were heard Tuesday included Deputy District Attorneys Pat
Campbell and Daniel Feldstern, who are running against two others for the seat
currently held by Judge Marcus Tucker; Deputy Attorney General Robert Henry,
one of six candidates for the seat being vacated by Judge Rosemary Shumsky; and
Salute. Henry said his interview began after 9
p.m., and Salute said he followed Henry and
was the last person interviewed.

Henry
has also complained about the committee’s procedures, claiming it has failed to
follow its own rules requiring that candidates be advised of the reasons for
ratings of less than “well qualified.”

Though
tentatively rated “qualified,” Henry said, he was never confronted with any
negative information about his own qualifications. Instead, he declared, he has
received the impression that some members of the committee feel that career
deputy attorneys general, who rarely have extensive trial experience, cannot be
“well qualified” for judicial office.

Three
other candidates yesterday made their ratings public for the first time.

Deputy
District Attorney Daniel Bershin and retired Deputy District Attorney Herb
Lapin, both of whom are seeking to unseat Judge David Wesley, said they have
been rated “qualified.” Wesley was Criminal Courts assistant supervising judge
at the time of the May incident and was also named in the ad that sought
opposition to Oki.

Bershin
said his rating was raised from “not qualified” to “qualified” after an appeal.
Lapin said he chose not to challenge his “qualified” rating.

The
third candidate running against Wesley is Los Angeles Police Dept. Sgt. Kevin
Burke, who could not be reached yesterday.

Deputy
District Attorney Larry Diamond said he received a “qualified” rating and chose
not to appeal it. Diamond is one of three candidates seeking to replace Judge
Nancy Brown, who retired last month.